I was forwarded a message from a DZO that got this letter from their insurance carrier. For years people have been talking about the fear that the FAA may make us stop doing activities, it looks like we were worrying about the wrong group stepping in since the insurance carrier that is insuring the majority of the jump fleet out there is in the position to implement restrictions to anyone that wants to keep their planes insured. Currently in the cross hairs are airplane formation takeoffs, formation flights with jumpers and wingsuiting due to the high number of tail strikes occurring. We as a community need to come together to correct these issues or we could be finding that the plane operators might need to stop allowing those activities to occur if they want to keep insured.

(Seems I have a little more of a voice with respect to certain subjects than I realized. Thank you all for your feedback and responses. I always welcome comments either pro or con. I feel the more conversation I encourage, the safer I believe we all will all be.)

2. The number of wing suit tail strikes show a dramatic increase. Tail strikes have to stop!

It is like my previous e-mail on formation take-offs; they look cool, pilot's love them, and they are a catastrophe waiting to happen. The same logic applies to wing suit and airplane formation flying. Our underwriter has informed me that they consider wing suit and aircraft formation flying an unapproved operation. If one of us files a hull claim that is a result of a wing suit strike from an attempted formation flight with a wing suit jumper, we are now on notice that the operator's continuing insurance coverage will be subject to termination. If you want to engage in this high risk activity then it will be at your own risk and others in the skydiving insurance group will not be subject to a rate increase due to your desire to engage in what is an unnecessary operation.

The Skydiving Industry had 11 wing suit aircraft tail strikes last year. It is really very simple math, if we don't do something to correct this problem, than we are forcing the insurance industry to do something about it. Their only means of correcting the problem is either through overall rate increases or the elimination of coverage for claims as a result of a wing suit strike. I think we can all agree that neither outcome is acceptable. Let's be a little more pro-active.

I know there is a lot of activity already with respect to standardizing and regulating wing suit jumping and there is also a lot of resistance to it's regulation. I have heard the argument that USPA does not regulate freeflying or Crew activities so why regulate wing suit jumping? I would argue that those two activities are not causing the same problem that the wing suit jumpers are causing with aircraft collisions. Let's not wait to do something until someone brings down a whole airplane as a result of wing suit jumper ripping the horizontal stabilizer right off the fuselage. I can not tell you all what to do and I don't have the answer for you anyway. All I can do is let you know what is happening from the Insurance side of the problem. As I mentioned above, wing suit tail strikes have become a big problem from an insurance stand point and if something isn't done immediately that reduces the frequency of wing suit tail strikes than we are forcing the insurance industry to the only responses available to them. Let's make wing suit operations as safe as they can be. Let's give the insurance companies another choice!

1) Don't chase wingsuiters with the plane. If you do and there's a claim because a wingsuiter contacts the plane when engaging in such a formation, the claim will be denied and your coverage will be terminated.

2) Be proactive about stopping wingsuit tail strikes because we've noticed the numbers and they're not good. Don't wait till a wingsuit tail strike brings down a plane to do something about it.

Has there really been 11 aircraft collisions between jump planes and skydivers wearing wing-suits last year?

That sounds absolutely absurd.

Well, those are the 11 that this company got claims for, so that does not include potential strikes at dropzones that insure their planes at other insurances, or potential strikes that no claim was filed for. So while the number sounds absurd, it may be just the tip of the so called iceberg.

Sounds a lot like what many of us have been saying & trying to accomplish for quite some time now, and give the insurance company the other choice they need. He basically said that if we dont stop WS tailstrikes, and we do not have some type of standardized training to help do so, they will no longer insure any A/C that allow wingsuiting. Insurance company being the first to act, likely means the FAA isn't far behind. Insurance is the one to pay out on these clams, hence them being first, and having the numbers to support it. This is a solvable problem with proper training and standards, & shows why this is a wingsuit issue, not any other disciplines'. Hope this is enough for the nay-sayers to understand the scope of the issues at hand. I know Id like to be able to still fly my wingsuit, don't you?

So the bottom line is: this is a case where "money talks" and bullshit walks.

When an aircraft insurer says to the owner/operator "hey, yeah, if you let wingsuiters out of the plane, my actuaries tell me I've gotta charge you 3x the premium" you're gonna see a whole lot more of "Wingsuiting: Not permitted" at DZs around the country.

Not many DZOs want to pay more for -anything- than they have to, and if it means upsetting/eliminating a subset of jumpers to avoid having to pass a disproportionately ballooning cost on to the other jumpers, well "Wingsuiting: Not Permitted" takes about 10 seconds to type and costs zero.

So the bottom line is: this is a case where "money talks" and bullshit walks.

When an aircraft insurer says to the owner/operator "hey, yeah, if you let wingsuiters out of the plane, my actuaries tell me I've gotta charge you 3x the premium" you're gonna see a whole lot more of "Wingsuiting: Not permitted" at DZs around the country.

Not many DZOs want to pay more for -anything- than they have to, and if it means upsetting/eliminating a subset of jumpers to avoid having to pass a disproportionately ballooning cost on to the other jumpers, well "Wingsuiting: Not Permitted" takes about 10 seconds to type and costs zero.

this exactly, and so this email is a warning that that particular decision is imminent unless we take action as a community.

I was forwarded a message from a DZO that got this letter from their insurance carrier. For years people have been talking about the fear that the FAA may make us stop doing activities, it looks like we were worrying about the wrong group stepping in since the insurance carrier that is insuring the majority of the jump fleet out there is in the position to implement restrictions to anyone that wants to keep their planes insured. Currently in the cross hairs are airplane formation takeoffs, formation flights with jumpers and wingsuiting due to the high number of tail strikes occurring. We as a community need to come together to correct these issues or we could be finding that the plane operators might need to stop allowing those activities to occur if they want to keep insured.

(Seems I have a little more of a voice with respect to certain subjects than I realized. Thank you all for your feedback and responses. I always welcome comments either pro or con. I feel the more conversation I encourage, the safer I believe we all will all be.)

2. The number of wing suit tail strikes show a dramatic increase. Tail strikes have to stop!

It is like my previous e-mail on formation take-offs; they look cool, pilot's love them, and they are a catastrophe waiting to happen. The same logic applies to wing suit and airplane formation flying. Our underwriter has informed me that they consider wing suit and aircraft formation flying an unapproved operation. If one of us files a hull claim that is a result of a wing suit strike from an attempted formation flight with a wing suit jumper, we are now on notice that the operator's continuing insurance coverage will be subject to termination. If you want to engage in this high risk activity then it will be at your own risk and others in the skydiving insurance group will not be subject to a rate increase due to your desire to engage in what is an unnecessary operation.

The Skydiving Industry had 11 wing suit aircraft tail strikes last year. It is really very simple math, if we don't do something to correct this problem, than we are forcing the insurance industry to do something about it. Their only means of correcting the problem is either through overall rate increases or the elimination of coverage for claims as a result of a wing suit strike. I think we can all agree that neither outcome is acceptable. Let's be a little more pro-active.

I know there is a lot of activity already with respect to standardizing and regulating wing suit jumping and there is also a lot of resistance to it's regulation. I have heard the argument that USPA does not regulate freeflying or Crew activities so why regulate wing suit jumping? I would argue that those two activities are not causing the same problem that the wing suit jumpers are causing with aircraft collisions. Let's not wait to do something until someone brings down a whole airplane as a result of wing suit jumper ripping the horizontal stabilizer right off the fuselage. I can not tell you all what to do and I don't have the answer for you anyway. All I can do is let you know what is happening from the Insurance side of the problem. As I mentioned above, wing suit tail strikes have become a big problem from an insurance stand point and if something isn't done immediately that reduces the frequency of wing suit tail strikes than we are forcing the insurance industry to the only responses available to them. Let's make wing suit operations as safe as they can be. Let's give the insurance companies another choice!

Until I see the actual document from the insurance carrier, I take this "letter" with a grain of salt because its content is just more of the same puppy poop: A narrow-based problem (wingsuit exit tailstrikes) must be solved by the imposition of a broad-based bureaucracy or wingsuiting will be banned.

BTW, who wrote the parenthetical comment? The "insurance" guy or the DZO?

And who wrote the body of it? The "insurance" guy or the DZO? If the former, then how is it that a whuffo insurance guy writes like an experienced wingsuiter in support of instituting a new wingsuiting bureaucracy?

Finally, the writer cites concern about tailstrikes and offers evidence related thereto -- but offers no evidence or other reasons why formation takeoffs, which have been conducted for decades without incident, are lumped together with this relatively new activity, the tailstrike problems of which are related not at all to formation takeoffs.

Let's see a scan of the real letter.

Let's see the name of the actual insurance industry person who sent it, with contact information.

And the name of the DZO who passed it on.

Then we can discuss.

Otherwise, this "letter" needs to be flushed with the rest of the poop.

So the bottom line is: this is a case where "money talks" and bullshit walks.

When an aircraft insurer says to the owner/operator "hey, yeah, if you let wingsuiters out of the plane, my actuaries tell me I've gotta charge you 3x the premium" you're gonna see a whole lot more of "Wingsuiting: Not permitted" at DZs around the country.

Not many DZOs want to pay more for -anything- than they have to, and if it means upsetting/eliminating a subset of jumpers to avoid having to pass a disproportionately ballooning cost on to the other jumpers, well "Wingsuiting: Not Permitted" takes about 10 seconds to type and costs zero.

That’s quite a jump from “no wingsuit collisions” to no wing suits allowed.

I can assure you this letter is not to be taken lightly. It was constructed by Jeff Norris the leading underwriter for jump aircraft insurance. I also believe he has jump experience. I am sure if you ask around you will find out that a majority of dropzones are using them to insure thier aircrafts.

I liken this letter to federal funds for the highways. If you choose to have a higher speed limit on your highways then you will not receive federal funds. In this case come up with some standard or we will raise your rates or worse not insure you.

It's not a surprise to see this has finally hit the public airwaves. This is but one of the concerns facing the wingsuit community and DZO's. It came up in the DZO questionnaire a few times.

This is also why I've been in support of a standardized wingsuit training program. Without standards, skydiving cannot show insurers nor the FAA that we have a baseline from which people are taught.

There will be a question on the November USPA ballot, asking "Should USPA adopt a standardized wingsuit instructor rating?"

Sounds a lot like what many of us have been saying & trying to accomplish for quite some time now, and give the insurance company the other choice they need. He basically said that if we dont stop WS tailstrikes, and we do not have some type of standardized training to help do so, they will no longer insure any A/C that allow wingsuiting. Insurance company being the first to act, likely means the FAA isn't far behind. Insurance is the one to pay out on these clams, hence them being first, and having the numbers to support it. This is a solvable problem with proper training and standards, & shows why this is a wingsuit issue, not any other disciplines'. Hope this is enough for the nay-sayers to understand the scope of the issues at hand. I know Id like to be able to still fly my wingsuit, don't you?

Scotty Burns

This is a solvable problem, all right, and it can be solved without imposing a new regulatory bureaucracy complete with power brokers and gatekeepers. Really, how hard is it to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the plane? You need a bureaucracy for that?

Really, what "training and standards" do you need to tell someone to not open their wings until they're one second out of the plane? You need a bureaucracy for that?

Seems to me that the current instructor gods aren't doing a very good job if so many of their "graduates" don't know this very simple rule. Why is it that forcing people to pay for their services before they can jump a wingsuit will somehow make all these current wingsuit instructor gods so much better?

That’s quite a jump from “no wingsuit collisions” to no wing suits allowed.

I had to re-read it (and see the original, which I have) to get that there are two points: wingsuits in formation with aircraft (holy smokes, anybody doing that here in the US?) and wingsuit tail strikes.

(Not 100% sure where the formation take off thing comes from, appears maybe it was in "last week's email"? Not sure, not clear)

The insurer(s) are saying "don't fly your plane in formation with wingsuiters. It would be bad, and uninsureable."

And then they're saying "We're looking at the increase in claims [damage claims, I'm assuming, to the aircraft for aircraft repair, not liability claims] surrounding wingsuit tail strikes. We might have to charge you out the ass if you keep allowing wingsuiters to jump out of your planes AND wingsuiters keep colliding with the empennage. Can we stop the wingsuiters from colliding with the tail? Please?"

Insurers can tell the insured pretty much whenever that certain kinds of actions will void their coverage.

Example: My ex-wife worked for a company that did collections for Avis rent-a-car. Apparently, if you drive on a dirt road, you're in violation of the rental agreement, and any insurance you have doesn't cover you if you violate the rental agreement.

So someone would drive onto a dirt road, go "Whoops, gotta turn around, wrong place.." and put the car into a culvert or a ditch or something, causing damage.

The Avis insurance that you paid extra for is void if you're in violation of the rental agreement. Your insurance apparently is too.

And _everybody_ is sure their auto policy covers them when driving a rental, but judging by the conversations I heard the collectors have with people, is likely NOT the understanding that your insurance company has...

So they were substantially collecting from people who had driving down a dirt road, totaled the car, and Avis said "See, right here, says you can't drive off the paved surface.. (or whatever it says) Pay us."

Insurance is a big racket and controls the purse strings. A badly handled insurance claim could put an owner/operator or DZ out of business.

I can assure you this letter is not to be taken lightly. It was constructed by Jeff Norris the leading underwriter for jump aircraft insurance. I also believe he has jump experience. I am sure if you ask around you will find out that a majority of dropzones are using them to insure thier aircrafts.

I liken this letter to federal funds for the highways. If you choose to have a higher speed limit on your highways then you will not receive federal funds. In this case come up with some standard or we will raise your rates or worse not insure you.

It's not a surprise to see this has finally hit the public airwaves. This is but one of the concerns facing the wingsuit community and DZO's. It came up in the DZO questionnaire a few times.

This is also why I've been in support of a standardized wingsuit training program. Without standards, skydiving cannot show insurers nor the FAA that we have a baseline from which people are taught.

There will be a question on the November USPA ballot, asking "Should USPA adopt a standardized wingsuit instructor rating?"

Rich Winstock USPA National Director

Thanks for your reply, Rich, but sorry, it's just more puppy poop. What they want to see is reduced wingsuit-related tailstrikes, not a training system that is 99 percent not devoted to avoiding tailstrikes.

They want people to quit hitting the airplanes they insure, not a new bureaucracy.

If Mr. Norris is a real guy, then he is parroting one "solution" that has only peripheral relevance to his concern.

And if Mr. Norris is such a parachuting-educated insurance guy, then why does he lump wingsuit tailstrikes with formation takeoffs, which have zero relevance to wingsuit tailstrikes, and which have gone on essentially incident-free for decades?

But I digress, so I ask again:

Why do you need a bureaucracy in order to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the airplane? A whuffo can do it, or the loader, or the pilot, or the last non-wingsuit people out of the plane.

All you supporters of this new bureaucracy talk a grand glorious and convoluted game and not one of you has yet answered this really simple question.

That’s quite a jump from “no wingsuit collisions” to no wing suits allowed.

I had to re-read it (and see the original, which I have) to get that there are two points: wingsuits in formation with aircraft (holy smokes, anybody doing that here in the US?) and wingsuit tail strikes.

(Not 100% sure where the formation take off thing comes from, appears maybe it was in "last week's email"? Not sure, not clear)

The insurer(s) are saying "don't fly your plane in formation with wingsuiters. It would be bad, and uninsureable."

And then they're saying "We're looking at the increase in claims [damage claims, I'm assuming, to the aircraft for aircraft repair, not liability claims] surrounding wingsuit tail strikes. We might have to charge you out the ass if you keep allowing wingsuiters to jump out of your planes AND wingsuiters keep colliding with the empennage. Can we stop the wingsuiters from colliding with the tail? Please?"

Insurers can tell the insured pretty much whenever that certain kinds of actions will void their coverage.

Example: My ex-wife worked for a company that did collections for Avis rent-a-car. Apparently, if you drive on a dirt road, you're in violation of the rental agreement, and any insurance you have doesn't cover you if you violate the rental agreement.

So someone would drive onto a dirt road, go "Whoops, gotta turn around, wrong place.." and put the car into a culvert or a ditch or something, causing damage.

The Avis insurance that you paid extra for is void if you're in violation of the rental agreement. Your insurance apparently is too.

And _everybody_ is sure their auto policy covers them when driving a rental, but judging by the conversations I heard the collectors have with people, is likely NOT the understanding that your insurance company has...

So they were substantially collecting from people who had driving down a dirt road, totaled the car, and Avis said "See, right here, says you can't drive off the paved surface.. (or whatever it says) Pay us."

Insurance is a big racket and controls the purse strings. A badly handled insurance claim could put an owner/operator or DZ out of business.

I just received more information via PM and I take back my post. It’s not quite a jump it is a reality.

Why is it that forcing people to pay for their services before they can jump a wingsuit will somehow make all these current wingsuit instructor gods so much better?

I think this argument fails in the first part a little bit.. I don't think the added bureaucracy forces people to pay for instruction. An instructional rating is like any other rating with the USPA and comes at the cost of approx. 30,= to renew on a yearly bases. If you currently hold a 'coach' rating you already pay this, and hence having the extra "WSI" checkbox does not add any additional cost. If you do not hold a 'coach' rating, you should not be coaching in the first place.

Secondary, if you are the coach, you make the price for teaching others, if you wish to teach others entirely for free, the rating does not change that in any way, and if you wish to ask 500USD per jump, then you are free to do so too.. I myself coach people merely for slot typically, and often I forget to ask even that, I don't feel I have to suddenly change my price if the rating becomes official.

Sure getting the rating may be a bit of an investment depending on which "Examiner" you go to, but there again it is the examiner that sets the price, not USPA, and hence if I were to be an examiner at some point I'm free to continue offering my service for slot and continue to forget and ask about that.

In reply to:

Why do you need a bureaucracy in order to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the airplane? A whuffo can do it, or the loader, or the pilot, or the last non-wingsuit people out of the plane.

All you supporters of this new bureaucracy talk a grand glorious and convoluted game and not one of you has yet answered this really simple question.

44

This is somewhat of a point I'm struggling with too, I'm not at all in favor of adding additional bureaucracy, however it seems that within the USPA as an organization there is no other way to standardize training methods but to make a rating for it. There simply is no other procedure for attaining standardization. And we as a community can't even agree on anything let alone a standard training method, so lets just say that "doing it ourselves" is not really a strong argument considering our past with doing things "ourselves". I've never seen a community with so much drama.

So why standardize? well, in my opinion - if all coaches did teach the same material it becomes easier for those coaches to exchange experiences.

- Furthermore each new wingsuiter can assume a certain level of quality, just like going to mcdonalds always gets you the same burger. (although admittedly that may be a poor example depending on whether you like mcdonalds or not).

- if everyone teaches the same material we can fall back on that material by way of a checklist to assure you have covered everything. For some of you it may be so natural because you have taught to 100's of student, but for others like me that may not be the case. Having reference material is a good way to prevent missing something. I often refer back to the SIM and AFF manuals to refresh my mind before I take on a student.

- Measuring is a big thing for me too, measuring someones performance is not objective without having something to measure with. Are you good to become a coach or not?

- Accountability: We can be held accountable as a coach for the things we teach, and thus held against higher standards.

All this said, we can start today with making plane loaders make that comment as you suggested, we can start today by having loader look for a sticker on your rig to prevent you from going onto the airplane without a DZ briefing. And we can start today by talking to each other constructively about our training methods and see if we can align them as we claim we're so good at ("we don't need bureaucracy because we can do it perfectly fine ourselves"), and then maybe the USPA doesn't have to step in at all...

Ultimately the USPA is only stepping in because we've been acting like a bunch of little kids. It started with the brand wars, then the grid had and still has it's drama, the next thing we're going to have drama about competitions, all because we're too ego and want to be the first to propose something and get our 15 minute of fame...

Why is it that forcing people to pay for their services before they can jump a wingsuit will somehow make all these current wingsuit instructor gods so much better?

I think this argument fails in the first part a little bit.. I don't think the added bureaucracy forces people to pay for instruction. An instructional rating is like any other rating with the USPA and comes at the cost of approx. 30,= to renew on a yearly bases. If you currently hold a 'coach' rating you already pay this, and hence having the extra "WSI" checkbox does not add any additional cost. If you do not hold a 'coach' rating, you should not be coaching in the first place.

Secondary, if you are the coach, you make the price for teaching others, if you wish to teach others entirely for free, the rating does not change that in any way, and if you wish to ask 500USD per jump, then you are free to do so too.. I myself coach people merely for slot typically, and often I forget to ask even that, I don't feel I have to suddenly change my price if the rating becomes official.

Sure getting the rating may be a bit of an investment depending on which "Examiner" you go to, but there again it is the examiner that sets the price, not USPA, and hence if I were to be an examiner at some point I'm free to continue offering my service for slot and continue to forget and ask about that.

In reply to:

Why do you need a bureaucracy in order to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the airplane? A whuffo can do it, or the loader, or the pilot, or the last non-wingsuit people out of the plane.

All you supporters of this new bureaucracy talk a grand glorious and convoluted game and not one of you has yet answered this really simple question.

44

This is somewhat of a point I'm struggling with too, I'm not at all in favor of adding additional bureaucracy, however it seems that within the USPA as an organization there is no other way to standardize training methods but to make a rating for it. There simply is no other procedure for attaining standardization. And we as a community can't even agree on anything let alone a standard training method, so lets just say that "doing it ourselves" is not really a strong argument considering our past with doing things "ourselves". I've never seen a community with so much drama.

So why standardize? well, in my opinion - if all coaches did teach the same material it becomes easier for those coaches to exchange experiences.

- Furthermore each new wingsuiter can assume a certain level of quality, just like going to mcdonalds always gets you the same burger. (although admittedly that may be a poor example depending on whether you like mcdonalds or not).

- if everyone teaches the same material we can fall back on that material by way of a checklist to assure you have covered everything. For some of you it may be so natural because you have taught to 100's of student, but for others like me that may not be the case. Having reference material is a good way to prevent missing something. I often refer back to the SIM and AFF manuals to refresh my mind before I take on a student.

- Measuring is a big thing for me too, measuring someones performance is not objective without having something to measure with. Are you good to become a coach or not?

- Accountability: We can be held accountable as a coach for the things we teach, and thus held against higher standards.

All this said, we can start today with making plane loaders make that comment as you suggested, we can start today by having loader look for a sticker on your rig to prevent you from going onto the airplane without a DZ briefing. And we can start today by talking to each other constructively about our training methods and see if we can align them as we claim we're so good at ("we don't need bureaucracy because we can do it perfectly fine ourselves"), and then maybe the USPA doesn't have to step in at all...

Ultimately the USPA is only stepping in because we've been acting like a bunch of little kids. It started with the brand wars, then the grid had and still has it's drama, the next thing we're going to have drama about competitions, all because we're too ego and want to be the first to propose something and get our 15 minute of fame...

Anyway, I guess more puppy poop ;) I'll shut up now...

LOL... no, you're at least thinking about it.

The bottom line here is wingsuit tailstrikes. Solving that issue does not require a training program, an instructor rating, an experienced wingsuiter -- or even a skydiver. The whuffo loader can remind people of this. So can the whuffo manifestor who has wingsuiters sign an additional waiver specifically spelling out their responsibilities as a wingsuiter at that DZ. So can the whuffo pilot whose butt is more on the line than anyone else when an idiot wingsuiter opens his or her wings less than one second out of the plane.

>The bottom line here is wingsuit tailstrikes. Solving that issue does not require a >training program, an instructor rating, an experienced wingsuiter -- or even a skydiver.

You are correct. And as another poster explained, solving the problem is simple. "No wingsuiting." That's easy and guaranteed, and is what will happen if we "self regulate" it as well as we've self regulated canopy safety over the past ten years.

>whuffo manifestor who has wingsuiters sign an additional waiver specifically spelling >out their responsibilities as a wingsuiter

Requiring a 17th signature to go with the 16 signatures on another document the jumper didn't read won't do anything, other than make Kinko's a few more bucks in photocopying costs.

Easy fix, let's have the wingsuiters and swoopers come over to the Land of the Un-free (that would be Europe) and have them perform their disciplins where they can. And leave the Land of the Free with their tandems. FS people and freeflyers could stay in their tunnels, but we also have a couple of these over here to cater for multidisciplin jumpers.